Congress can “restore common-sense rules and fiscal integrity” to the farm program by setting a $125,000-per-person limit on farm subsidies, said seven farm advocacy groups in advance of the Senate Agriculture Committee vote today on its farm bill. Rather than give his own opinion, the sponsor of the $125,000 limit told reporters to ask chairman Pat Roberts about the chances it will become part of the bill.
“Chairman Roberts has a lot to do” with the success or failure of amendments, said Grassley during a teleconference. “I’m still working to get the votes to get it done.”
The farm bill written by Roberts and Sen. Debbie Stabenow, the senior Democrat on the committee, sticks to the current eligibility rules for subsidies, except in one area. It would deny subsidies to people with adjusted gross income above $700,000 a year; the cap now is $900,000. The AGI limit is doubled for a married couple. Reformers say it is easy to evade the USDA rules through paper reorganizations to create more entities eligible for payments or by listing more people as part of a farming operation.
Grassley’s amendment would create a “hard” cap on payments and limit subsidies to farmers, their spouses and one “manager” per farm. Similar language was adopted by the House and Senate for the 2014 farm law but it was deleted from the final version of the bill. The Republican-written House farm bill would make cousins, nieces and nephews eligible for subsidies and remove payment limits on some types of corporate farms.
“Having non-farmers get big subsidies … doesn’t help get support from urban legislators” for the farm bill, said Grassley.
“The amendment creates a clear and easily enforced standard,” said the seven advocacy groups in a letter in support of Grassley. “This amendment would restore common-sense rules and fiscal integrity to the commodity program by placing a hard cap on total commodity benefits per year for any one farm.” Signing the letter were the National Farmers Union, the Center for Rural Affairs, National Family Farm Coalition, National Grange, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, National Young Farmers Coalition and the Rural Coalition.
In hopes of drawing bipartisan support for their bill, Roberts and Stabenow decided against major changes in SNAP. House Republicans proposed broader and stricter worker requirements that would apply to 7 million people. Medical and health groups from the U.S. Northeast wrote senators to oppose cuts in SNAP. The food movement group Food Policy Action-Education Fund asked Agriculture Committee members to protect SNAP, land stewardship programs and local food programs.
President Trump has called for new and tougher work rules for social welfare programs and the White House hailed the House farm bill, with its requirement for “work capable” adults to work at least 20 hours a week or spend the equivalent time in job training or workfare, as “clearly a step toward meaningful welfare reform.” In a Farm Journal interview, White House legislative affairs director Marc Short declined to say if the president would sign a farm bill without tougher SNAP rules.
“The reality is we expect the House to pass a farm bill with work requirements this summer. We expect the Senate bill to pass this summer. The president’s very eager to sign a farm bill. He wants to deliver on that for farmers across America,” said Short.